A psychopathic sex criminal described as being 'very high risk to women' and subject to three restraining orders can appeal against wearing his tag after claiming it violates his human rights.

Paul Richards, 47, has argued that when magistrates forbade him from stepping outside his home without the device they breached his right to a private and family life.

Richards, from Middlesbrough, is now at the centre of a vital test case, after a judge ruled he may have cause for complaint, opening the way for him to argue his case before the Court of Appeal.

Argument: Sex criminal Paul Richards, 47, is to appeal against wearing as tag as it violates his human rights

Diagnosed psychopath, Richards, who has
an antisocial and narcissistic personality disorder, has a long history
of offences of violence, kidnapping, dishonesty, harassment and no less
than 12 sex crimes.

Reports have assessed him as 'a very high risk' to women and he is one of only a handful of sex offenders on the Ministry of Justice’s 'critical public protection' list on the basis that he represents an 'imminent risk of serious harm'.

Drug user, Richards, who is currently in custody, having breached the terms of a sexual offences prevention order (SOPO), is already subject to three restraining orders made to protect adult women who had been harrassed or subjected to violence by him.

RELATED ARTICLES

Share this article

Share

Medical evidence indicated that he displayed high levels of deceit and manipulation and minimal emphathy or remorse for his crimes.

Richards is subject to a SOPO which
forbids him from approaching, enticing or otherwise seeking to
communicate with any female he knows or suspects to be involved in
prostitution without reasonable cause.

He was arrested for a suspected breach of that order in October 2012, after he was spotted in a red light district.

That
was 11 days after magistrates ordered him not to leave his home without
wearing a tag, formally known as a Location Monitoring Device.

Example: Richards is now at the centre of a vital test case, after a judge ruled he may have cause for complaint, opening the way for him to argue his case before the Court of Appeal

Richards says the indefinite requirement to wear a tag every time he leaves his home amounts to a violation of his right to respect for his home and privacy, enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

His complaints were rejected by the High Court last year.

However, in a case which is bound to have a crucial impact on treatment of dangerous sex offenders in the community, he has now been granted permission to appeal.

Describing the facts of the case as ‘very stark indeed’, Lord Justice Laws said it was arguable that the requirement to wear a tag indefinitely, and thus submit to ‘continuous surveillance’ by the police, went beyond the terms of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Richards was also granted leave to pursue his human rights arguments before a three-judge Appeal Court.

His counsel, Hugh Southey QC, argued that indefinite tagging was ‘a very substantial interference with his right to personal autonomy’.

He added: 'Richards had no choice as to whether to wear a monitor. The monitoring allowed the police to locate him at all times.

'That meant that there was potential to gain substantial data regarding his activities. That was a denial of privacy.

'It also meant he was unable to undertake lawful actions that he did not wish the police to be aware of.'

No date was set for the full hearing of Richards’ appeal.

RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE: ARTICLE 8

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that:

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Controversially, the article has previously been cited by foreign criminals fighting deportation at the completion of their prison sentences, claiming they have a right to family life in the UK.

It is thought there are currently about 4,000 overseas convicts living in the UK that the Government wants to remove but is blocked from doing so by human rights laws.

Somali rapist, Mustafa Abdullahi, 31, who held a knife to a pregnant woman’s throat as he assaulted her, is among the many criminals who cannot be deported from Britain because of rules on a right to family life.

Abdullahi was jailed for ten years in 2007 after he threatened to kill his ‘vulnerable’ victim and repeatedly raped her in her own home.

He was set to be deported on release and Home Office lawyers warned immigration judges of his dangerous nature and a continued lack of respect for the law.

But in December last year he was deemed to have a right to a family life under Article 8 and released.

Abdullahi does not have any children or a wife in Britain, but his mother and siblings live here.